Happy New Year everyone, hope everyone had a great Christmas. I’ve hosted 21 people, visited about 11 pubs and attended a great house party, so got my money’s worth. AFAIK I have never had Covid although maybe I have had it without any symptoms.
Hope all are well and hearty and looking forward to the year ahead.
Quiet New Year's for us - homemade beef curry - after a fabulous Christmas on the slopes in France. Feeling quite chipper at the moment.
Lovely. We are off to France this spring. How annoying were restrictions there?
The masks worn are supposed to be surgical or FFP2 but many wore just cloth ones and this was fine. People were reminded on ski lifts at bottom of resort only to put on masks. QR codes were periodically checked - that was easy. No problems really. I suppose a minor annoyance was that the cafe we went in for breakfast every morning had to scan our QR codes every day even though they knew us from previous days' visits; amusing really, I don't think you can suddenly become unvaccinated!
Obvs you need the French ban on tourism to be reversed before you go.
Cheers. Yes indeed. How were you able to go? I actually didn’t realise they’d banned tourists!
Wow. Don't you follow the news?
Yes, closely. But somehow I missed that. Was it announced over Christmas? How did @Stocky go skiing if they had banned tourists. I don’t understand…
We were due to fly out 18 Dec and on the morning of 16 Dec France announced tourism ban from 00:01 18th. Fuckety fuck.
We brought flight forward a day. Hoped our PCR tests came in time (they did). Got in under the wire. We were really lucky in that transfer company and accommodation both adjusted arrangements no problem. So we ended up having a day's extra holiday with much quieter slopes than usual. The flight home on Boxing Day had 21 passengers on it.
U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's personal Twitter account (@mtgreenee) has been permanently suspended for misinformation about COVID-19
I’ve made this point before. Isn’t anyone else worried about a major means if communication being restricted to politicians who agree with the owner of that channel.
Either Twitter is a publisher who can chose what to publish, or it is a medium for others communication with which case it can’t
If dangerous lies & hate speech are prohibited on a platform and most dangerous lies & hate speech come from MAGA loonies then MAGA loonies will inevitably bear the brunt of restrictions. I just can't get to seeing this as some worrying slippery slope towards the sort of sinister politically motivated censorship of free speech you get in (eg) China.
The problem is when someone is a credible candidate for high office and you restrict their ability to present their case.
Not very… democratic… is it
There are some much worse undemocratic actions in the US in favour of Trump. This rebalances it a bit.
That way lies madness
Fix the other problems instead. Don’t create new ones.
Politicians don't deserve special opt outs from the rest of us. If someone incites people to kill others then it shouldn't matter who they are for that to break the law.
Sure, if they break the law prosecute them. But that’s not what we are talking about
The same principle applies to private sector rules as much as it does to the law.
The media sector has always had different rules because of the intersection with the public sphere.
If the BBC, ITV and Sky plus Facebook and Twitter decided to ban any mention or broadcast of Kier Starmer would that be right? I say not.
If the b****** is advocating the violent overthrow of the democratically elected Government, yes ban Starmer.
U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's personal Twitter account (@mtgreenee) has been permanently suspended for misinformation about COVID-19
I’ve made this point before. Isn’t anyone else worried about a major means if communication being restricted to politicians who agree with the owner of that channel.
Either Twitter is a publisher who can chose what to publish, or it is a medium for others communication with which case it can’t
If dangerous lies & hate speech are prohibited on a platform and most dangerous lies & hate speech come from MAGA loonies then MAGA loonies will inevitably bear the brunt of restrictions. I just can't get to seeing this as some worrying slippery slope towards the sort of sinister politically motivated censorship of free speech you get in (eg) China.
The problem is when someone is a credible candidate for high office and you restrict their ability to present their case.
Not very… democratic… is it
There are some much worse undemocratic actions in the US in favour of Trump. This rebalances it a bit.
That way lies madness
Fix the other problems instead. Don’t create new ones.
Politicians don't deserve special opt outs from the rest of us. If someone incites people to kill others then it shouldn't matter who they are for that to break the law.
Sure, if they break the law prosecute them. But that’s not what we are talking about
There's also a liability issue. Say I went to the doorstep of Two Temple Place and started shouting how (insert politician) is evil and should be punished by looking at TSE shoes whilst listening to Radiohead. You would probably - and reasonably - call the police to have me removed to a public place, off your property.
If you do not, and something unutterably nasty happens to that politician (*), then you might be seen as liable. In the same way someone preaching hate from a mosque/church/whatever might cause problems for the location.
These Internet entities are private companies. They can choose who appears on their platform, and who does not.
(*) Such as looking at TSE's shoes whilst listening to Radiohead, or listening to me whilst I witter on about just about anything...
They claim a safe harbour by saying they have no publishing input. As a conduit they are not liable.
U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's personal Twitter account (@mtgreenee) has been permanently suspended for misinformation about COVID-19
I’ve made this point before. Isn’t anyone else worried about a major means if communication being restricted to politicians who agree with the owner of that channel.
Either Twitter is a publisher who can chose what to publish, or it is a medium for others communication with which case it can’t
If dangerous lies & hate speech are prohibited on a platform and most dangerous lies & hate speech come from MAGA loonies then MAGA loonies will inevitably bear the brunt of restrictions. I just can't get to seeing this as some worrying slippery slope towards the sort of sinister politically motivated censorship of free speech you get in (eg) China.
The problem is when someone is a credible candidate for high office and you restrict their ability to present their case.
Not very… democratic… is it
There are some much worse undemocratic actions in the US in favour of Trump. This rebalances it a bit.
That way lies madness
Fix the other problems instead. Don’t create new ones.
Politicians don't deserve special opt outs from the rest of us. If someone incites people to kill others then it shouldn't matter who they are for that to break the law.
Sure, if they break the law prosecute them. But that’s not what we are talking about
The same principle applies to private sector rules as much as it does to the law.
The media sector has always had different rules because of the intersection with the public sphere.
If the BBC, ITV and Sky plus Facebook and Twitter decided to ban any mention or broadcast of Kier Starmer would that be right? I say not.
If Starmer was consistently calling for kids to get kitchen knives and try balancing them on their heads, yes. But it would be up to those individual organisations to decide to no-platform the views. However, Starmer is such a public figure that they might be best just pointing and laughing. The anti-vaxxers who promote vax conspiracy theories are bordering on evil - as Wakefield was (and is) with MMR.
This is related to the Gerry Adams debacle in the 1970s/80s, which was by government mandate.
The issue is this Congresswoman who has just been banned plus Trump.
A random loon doesn’t matter. A credible candidate for elected office does
U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's personal Twitter account (@mtgreenee) has been permanently suspended for misinformation about COVID-19
I’ve made this point before. Isn’t anyone else worried about a major means if communication being restricted to politicians who agree with the owner of that channel.
Either Twitter is a publisher who can chose what to publish, or it is a medium for others communication with which case it can’t
If dangerous lies & hate speech are prohibited on a platform and most dangerous lies & hate speech come from MAGA loonies then MAGA loonies will inevitably bear the brunt of restrictions. I just can't get to seeing this as some worrying slippery slope towards the sort of sinister politically motivated censorship of free speech you get in (eg) China.
The problem is when someone is a credible candidate for high office and you restrict their ability to present their case.
Not very… democratic… is it
There are some much worse undemocratic actions in the US in favour of Trump. This rebalances it a bit.
That way lies madness
Fix the other problems instead. Don’t create new ones.
Politicians don't deserve special opt outs from the rest of us. If someone incites people to kill others then it shouldn't matter who they are for that to break the law.
Sure, if they break the law prosecute them. But that’s not what we are talking about
There's also a liability issue. Say I went to the doorstep of Two Temple Place and started shouting how (insert politician) is evil and should be punished by looking at TSE shoes whilst listening to Radiohead. You would probably - and reasonably - call the police to have me removed to a public place, off your property.
If you do not, and something unutterably nasty happens to that politician (*), then you might be seen as liable. In the same way someone preaching hate from a mosque/church/whatever might cause problems for the location.
These Internet entities are private companies. They can choose who appears on their platform, and who does not.
(*) Such as looking at TSE's shoes whilst listening to Radiohead, or listening to me whilst I witter on about just about anything...
They claim a safe harbour by saying they have no publishing input. As a conduit they are not liable.
Has the 'safe harbour' argument actually been tested in court? They claim it, but does it mean they are not liable?
IMV they should be liable: as long as they've had fair warning that a potential crime is being committed on their property.
U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's personal Twitter account (@mtgreenee) has been permanently suspended for misinformation about COVID-19
I’ve made this point before. Isn’t anyone else worried about a major means if communication being restricted to politicians who agree with the owner of that channel.
Either Twitter is a publisher who can chose what to publish, or it is a medium for others communication with which case it can’t
You think Trump being taken off Twitter was a bad decision?
I have a problem with the idea of a major means of political campaigning being denied to someone who has a very good chance of being a serious candidate for the presidency in 2024.
I would hate to see him elected again, and I hope he flames out in the primary.
But thumbs on the scale is not the way to win long term
The irony of Twitter banning the likes of Trump and this new congresswoman is that Twitter is basically an echo chamber for right wing moaners.
I am more interested in the blank removal of the "... for all" brand. They certainly not mad Fake News antivaxxer accounts. Click baity sure, some silly gossip stuff, but 90%+ of their stuff is just aggregation of mainstream news articles.
Politics for all repeatedly nicked other people's stories and presented them as unsourced exclusives.
Also the way it suddenly was everywhere made me suspicius that ir engaed in fake engagement tactics (bot farms etc) to get itself promoted by the algorithm.
Crazy as it seems the majority of people have twitter set to the algorithmic Home setting for their twitter feed rather than the pure chronological view, thus getting yourself promoted by the algorithm can be hugely lucrative.
There are loads of accounts that do that e.g. that "Nick" account that is Mr Anti-EU. I mean the Sun and the Mirror do it basically every day to each other.
Now the engagement thing, now that is something that I have wondered about for a while. Their growth was explosive from nothing and without any sort of official backing. Even if we think perhaps they knew more people and the story is a bit more than geek in his uni dorm, large companies struggle to get their social media off the ground like that.
Which has got me leaning towards perhaps they exploited some sort of weakness to drive inorganic growth that were definitely against TOS. I believe they recently set up an official business, perhaps moving to a revenue model is what now allows twitter to say, against TOS and you are trying to earn off it.
I see the www.forallmedia.co.uk site is also down so this looks like a fairly big stick ban that has torpedoed the business model. Still, it did what Moar was looking for and it landed him a job at The Spectator.
Happy New Year everyone, hope everyone had a great Christmas. I’ve hosted 21 people, visited about 11 pubs and attended a great house party, so got my money’s worth. AFAIK I have never had Covid although maybe I have had it without any symptoms.
Hope all are well and hearty and looking forward to the year ahead.
Quiet New Year's for us - homemade beef curry - after a fabulous Christmas on the slopes in France. Feeling quite chipper at the moment.
Lovely. We are off to France this spring. How annoying were restrictions there?
The masks worn are supposed to be surgical or FFP2 but many wore just cloth ones and this was fine. People were reminded on ski lifts at bottom of resort only to put on masks. QR codes were periodically checked - that was easy. No problems really. I suppose a minor annoyance was that the cafe we went in for breakfast every morning had to scan our QR codes every day even though they knew us from previous days' visits; amusing really, I don't think you can suddenly become unvaccinated!
Obvs you need the French ban on tourism to be reversed before you go.
Cheers. Yes indeed. How were you able to go? I actually didn’t realise they’d banned tourists!
Wow. Don't you follow the news?
Yes, closely. But somehow I missed that. Was it announced over Christmas? How did @Stocky go skiing if they had banned tourists. I don’t understand…
We were due to fly out 18 Dec and on the morning of 16 Dec France announced tourism ban from 00:01 18th. Fuckety fuck.
We brought flight forward a day. Hoped our PCR tests came in time (they did). Got in under the wire. We were really lucky in that transfer company and accommodation both adjusted arrangements no problem. So we ended up having a day's extra holiday with much quieter slopes than usual. The flight home on Boxing Day had 21 passengers on it.
U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's personal Twitter account (@mtgreenee) has been permanently suspended for misinformation about COVID-19
I’ve made this point before. Isn’t anyone else worried about a major means if communication being restricted to politicians who agree with the owner of that channel.
Either Twitter is a publisher who can chose what to publish, or it is a medium for others communication with which case it can’t
If dangerous lies & hate speech are prohibited on a platform and most dangerous lies & hate speech come from MAGA loonies then MAGA loonies will inevitably bear the brunt of restrictions. I just can't get to seeing this as some worrying slippery slope towards the sort of sinister politically motivated censorship of free speech you get in (eg) China.
The problem is when someone is a credible candidate for high office and you restrict their ability to present their case.
Not very… democratic… is it
There are some much worse undemocratic actions in the US in favour of Trump. This rebalances it a bit.
That way lies madness
Fix the other problems instead. Don’t create new ones.
Politicians don't deserve special opt outs from the rest of us. If someone incites people to kill others then it shouldn't matter who they are for that to break the law.
Sure, if they break the law prosecute them. But that’s not what we are talking about
The same principle applies to private sector rules as much as it does to the law.
The media sector has always had different rules because of the intersection with the public sphere.
If the BBC, ITV and Sky plus Facebook and Twitter decided to ban any mention or broadcast of Kier Starmer would that be right? I say not.
If Starmer was consistently calling for kids to get kitchen knives and try balancing them on their heads, yes. But it would be up to those individual organisations to decide to no-platform the views. However, Starmer is such a public figure that they might be best just pointing and laughing. The anti-vaxxers who promote vax conspiracy theories are bordering on evil - as Wakefield was (and is) with MMR.
This is related to the Gerry Adams debacle in the 1970s/80s, which was by government mandate.
The issue is this Congresswoman who has just been banned plus Trump.
A random loon doesn’t matter. A credible candidate for elected office does
Yes, I know the context. And it doesn't matter in this context IMO. In four days, we'll be at the anniversary of how an elected politician's evil/careless talk can lead to really bad things happening. And IMO that's not over: the consequences have polarised America even further.
Happy New Year everyone, hope everyone had a great Christmas. I’ve hosted 21 people, visited about 11 pubs and attended a great house party, so got my money’s worth. AFAIK I have never had Covid although maybe I have had it without any symptoms.
Hope all are well and hearty and looking forward to the year ahead.
Quiet New Year's for us - homemade beef curry - after a fabulous Christmas on the slopes in France. Feeling quite chipper at the moment.
Lovely. We are off to France this spring. How annoying were restrictions there?
The masks worn are supposed to be surgical or FFP2 but many wore just cloth ones and this was fine. People were reminded on ski lifts at bottom of resort only to put on masks. QR codes were periodically checked - that was easy. No problems really. I suppose a minor annoyance was that the cafe we went in for breakfast every morning had to scan our QR codes every day even though they knew us from previous days' visits; amusing really, I don't think you can suddenly become unvaccinated!
Obvs you need the French ban on tourism to be reversed before you go.
Cheers. Yes indeed. How were you able to go? I actually didn’t realise they’d banned tourists!
Wow. Don't you follow the news?
Yes, closely. But somehow I missed that. Was it announced over Christmas? How did @Stocky go skiing if they had banned tourists. I don’t understand…
We were due to fly out 18 Dec and on the morning of 16 Dec France announced tourism ban from 00:01 18th. Fuckety fuck.
We brought flight forward a day. Hoped our PCR tests came in time (they did). Got in under the wire. We were really lucky in that transfer company and accommodation both adjusted arrangements no problem. So we ended up having a day's extra holiday with much quieter slopes than usual. The flight home on Boxing Day had 21 passengers on it.
Was there any snow?
Yes, the Espace Killy area had a big dump early December. They also have good snowmaking coverage. The conditions were better that you would expect for the time of year (early season). Snow on the ground in resort too - which is always nice - especially at Christmas.
Getting hard-packed by the time we left though; they could do with some more snow now as a top-up.
U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's personal Twitter account (@mtgreenee) has been permanently suspended for misinformation about COVID-19
I’ve made this point before. Isn’t anyone else worried about a major means if communication being restricted to politicians who agree with the owner of that channel.
Either Twitter is a publisher who can chose what to publish, or it is a medium for others communication with which case it can’t
If dangerous lies & hate speech are prohibited on a platform and most dangerous lies & hate speech come from MAGA loonies then MAGA loonies will inevitably bear the brunt of restrictions. I just can't get to seeing this as some worrying slippery slope towards the sort of sinister politically motivated censorship of free speech you get in (eg) China.
The problem is when someone is a credible candidate for high office and you restrict their ability to present their case.
Not very… democratic… is it
There are some much worse undemocratic actions in the US in favour of Trump. This rebalances it a bit.
That way lies madness
Fix the other problems instead. Don’t create new ones.
Politicians don't deserve special opt outs from the rest of us. If someone incites people to kill others then it shouldn't matter who they are for that to break the law.
Sure, if they break the law prosecute them. But that’s not what we are talking about
The same principle applies to private sector rules as much as it does to the law.
The media sector has always had different rules because of the intersection with the public sphere.
If the BBC, ITV and Sky plus Facebook and Twitter decided to ban any mention or broadcast of Kier Starmer would that be right? I say not.
If Starmer was consistently calling for kids to get kitchen knives and try balancing them on their heads, yes. But it would be up to those individual organisations to decide to no-platform the views. However, Starmer is such a public figure that they might be best just pointing and laughing. The anti-vaxxers who promote vax conspiracy theories are bordering on evil - as Wakefield was (and is) with MMR.
This is related to the Gerry Adams debacle in the 1970s/80s, which was by government mandate.
The issue is this Congresswoman who has just been banned plus Trump.
A random loon doesn’t matter. A credible candidate for elected office does
She's a random loon though. She believed in Jewish space lasers(*) starting forest fires. That she got elected just shows you safe a safe seat can be.
U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's personal Twitter account (@mtgreenee) has been permanently suspended for misinformation about COVID-19
I’ve made this point before. Isn’t anyone else worried about a major means if communication being restricted to politicians who agree with the owner of that channel.
Either Twitter is a publisher who can chose what to publish, or it is a medium for others communication with which case it can’t
If dangerous lies & hate speech are prohibited on a platform and most dangerous lies & hate speech come from MAGA loonies then MAGA loonies will inevitably bear the brunt of restrictions. I just can't get to seeing this as some worrying slippery slope towards the sort of sinister politically motivated censorship of free speech you get in (eg) China.
And the other good news is that, at least for now, the platforms seem very uncomfortable with being put in the position of having to make these judgment calls, and would prefer (impossible) precision from the government on what they should do.
It's a tricky area, I do recognize this, but just as a general rule of thumb I find that I can cheer pretty much every piece of bile and purveyor thereof that the likes of Twitter manage to snip without getting overly concerned that our fundamental rights to Freedom of Speech are under attack. Myopic complacency or sound Big Picture judgement? Of course I think the latter but if a critical mass of people I'm sympatico with felt differently I'd probably have a rethink.
Happy New Year everyone, hope everyone had a great Christmas. I’ve hosted 21 people, visited about 11 pubs and attended a great house party, so got my money’s worth. AFAIK I have never had Covid although maybe I have had it without any symptoms.
Hope all are well and hearty and looking forward to the year ahead.
Quiet New Year's for us - homemade beef curry - after a fabulous Christmas on the slopes in France. Feeling quite chipper at the moment.
Lovely. We are off to France this spring. How annoying were restrictions there?
The masks worn are supposed to be surgical or FFP2 but many wore just cloth ones and this was fine. People were reminded on ski lifts at bottom of resort only to put on masks. QR codes were periodically checked - that was easy. No problems really. I suppose a minor annoyance was that the cafe we went in for breakfast every morning had to scan our QR codes every day even though they knew us from previous days' visits; amusing really, I don't think you can suddenly become unvaccinated!
Obvs you need the French ban on tourism to be reversed before you go.
Cheers. Yes indeed. How were you able to go? I actually didn’t realise they’d banned tourists!
Wow. Don't you follow the news?
Yes, closely. But somehow I missed that. Was it announced over Christmas? How did @Stocky go skiing if they had banned tourists. I don’t understand…
We were due to fly out 18 Dec and on the morning of 16 Dec France announced tourism ban from 00:01 18th. Fuckety fuck.
We brought flight forward a day. Hoped our PCR tests came in time (they did). Got in under the wire. We were really lucky in that transfer company and accommodation both adjusted arrangements no problem. So we ended up having a day's extra holiday with much quieter slopes than usual. The flight home on Boxing Day had 21 passengers on it.
As an addition to above - thumbs-up to Easyjet. The adjustment to our flights was super-easy and we are grateful they didn't cancel our return flight as hardly anyone else was on it. I wonder if Ryanair would have been so good?
Good for all of them. I'm with Ken Loach on this. After hearing that Charles Moore was Baron Moore of Etchingham I'm sure I'm not the only one who felt like retching
Isn't there a point where banging on about how they'd turned it down becomes Boris-style cakeism? I'm special enough to have been offered a gong but even more special to have turned it down; not like you little people who don't even register!
The really classy ones don't let it be known. It was he same with 'This is Your Life' where one or two let it be known that they'd been chosen but said no way...
Happy New Year everyone, hope everyone had a great Christmas. I’ve hosted 21 people, visited about 11 pubs and attended a great house party, so got my money’s worth. AFAIK I have never had Covid although maybe I have had it without any symptoms.
Hope all are well and hearty and looking forward to the year ahead.
Quiet New Year's for us - homemade beef curry - after a fabulous Christmas on the slopes in France. Feeling quite chipper at the moment.
Lovely. We are off to France this spring. How annoying were restrictions there?
The masks worn are supposed to be surgical or FFP2 but many wore just cloth ones and this was fine. People were reminded on ski lifts at bottom of resort only to put on masks. QR codes were periodically checked - that was easy. No problems really. I suppose a minor annoyance was that the cafe we went in for breakfast every morning had to scan our QR codes every day even though they knew us from previous days' visits; amusing really, I don't think you can suddenly become unvaccinated!
Obvs you need the French ban on tourism to be reversed before you go.
That all sounds tremendously annoying. For a start, I wouldn't really want to take a phone with me while doing a sport in which there is a strong chance that I might a) fall down on top of it or b) get wet.
U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's personal Twitter account (@mtgreenee) has been permanently suspended for misinformation about COVID-19
I’ve made this point before. Isn’t anyone else worried about a major means if communication being restricted to politicians who agree with the owner of that channel.
Either Twitter is a publisher who can chose what to publish, or it is a medium for others communication with which case it can’t
If dangerous lies & hate speech are prohibited on a platform and most dangerous lies & hate speech come from MAGA loonies then MAGA loonies will inevitably bear the brunt of restrictions. I just can't get to seeing this as some worrying slippery slope towards the sort of sinister politically motivated censorship of free speech you get in (eg) China.
The problem is when someone is a credible candidate for high office and you restrict their ability to present their case.
Not very… democratic… is it
There are some much worse undemocratic actions in the US in favour of Trump. This rebalances it a bit.
That way lies madness
Fix the other problems instead. Don’t create new ones.
Politicians don't deserve special opt outs from the rest of us. If someone incites people to kill others then it shouldn't matter who they are for that to break the law.
Sure, if they break the law prosecute them. But that’s not what we are talking about
The same principle applies to private sector rules as much as it does to the law.
The media sector has always had different rules because of the intersection with the public sphere.
If the BBC, ITV and Sky plus Facebook and Twitter decided to ban any mention or broadcast of Kier Starmer would that be right? I say not.
If Starmer was consistently calling for kids to get kitchen knives and try balancing them on their heads, yes. But it would be up to those individual organisations to decide to no-platform the views. However, Starmer is such a public figure that they might be best just pointing and laughing. The anti-vaxxers who promote vax conspiracy theories are bordering on evil - as Wakefield was (and is) with MMR.
This is related to the Gerry Adams debacle in the 1970s/80s, which was by government mandate.
The issue is this Congresswoman who has just been banned plus Trump.
A random loon doesn’t matter. A credible candidate for elected office does
Yes, I know the context. And it doesn't matter in this context IMO. In four days, we'll be at the anniversary of how an elected politician's evil/careless talk can lead to really bad things happening. And IMO that's not over: the consequences have polarised America even further.
I still can't understand how Trump isn't (edit) on sedition or treason charges by now. In many other countries around the world he would have been taken out and shot for trying to overthrow democracy like that.
U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's personal Twitter account (@mtgreenee) has been permanently suspended for misinformation about COVID-19
I’ve made this point before. Isn’t anyone else worried about a major means if communication being restricted to politicians who agree with the owner of that channel.
Either Twitter is a publisher who can chose what to publish, or it is a medium for others communication with which case it can’t
If dangerous lies & hate speech are prohibited on a platform and most dangerous lies & hate speech come from MAGA loonies then MAGA loonies will inevitably bear the brunt of restrictions. I just can't get to seeing this as some worrying slippery slope towards the sort of sinister politically motivated censorship of free speech you get in (eg) China.
The problem is when someone is a credible candidate for high office and you restrict their ability to present their case.
Not very… democratic… is it
There are some much worse undemocratic actions in the US in favour of Trump. This rebalances it a bit.
That way lies madness
Fix the other problems instead. Don’t create new ones.
Politicians don't deserve special opt outs from the rest of us. If someone incites people to kill others then it shouldn't matter who they are for that to break the law.
Sure, if they break the law prosecute them. But that’s not what we are talking about
The same principle applies to private sector rules as much as it does to the law.
The media sector has always had different rules because of the intersection with the public sphere.
If the BBC, ITV and Sky plus Facebook and Twitter decided to ban any mention or broadcast of Kier Starmer would that be right? I say not.
If Starmer was consistently calling for kids to get kitchen knives and try balancing them on their heads, yes. But it would be up to those individual organisations to decide to no-platform the views. However, Starmer is such a public figure that they might be best just pointing and laughing. The anti-vaxxers who promote vax conspiracy theories are bordering on evil - as Wakefield was (and is) with MMR.
This is related to the Gerry Adams debacle in the 1970s/80s, which was by government mandate.
The issue is this Congresswoman who has just been banned plus Trump.
A random loon doesn’t matter. A credible candidate for elected office does
U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's personal Twitter account (@mtgreenee) has been permanently suspended for misinformation about COVID-19
I’ve made this point before. Isn’t anyone else worried about a major means if communication being restricted to politicians who agree with the owner of that channel.
Either Twitter is a publisher who can chose what to publish, or it is a medium for others communication with which case it can’t
If dangerous lies & hate speech are prohibited on a platform and most dangerous lies & hate speech come from MAGA loonies then MAGA loonies will inevitably bear the brunt of restrictions. I just can't get to seeing this as some worrying slippery slope towards the sort of sinister politically motivated censorship of free speech you get in (eg) China.
The problem is when someone is a credible candidate for high office and you restrict their ability to present their case.
Not very… democratic… is it
There are some much worse undemocratic actions in the US in favour of Trump. This rebalances it a bit.
That way lies madness
Fix the other problems instead. Don’t create new ones.
Politicians don't deserve special opt outs from the rest of us. If someone incites people to kill others then it shouldn't matter who they are for that to break the law.
Sure, if they break the law prosecute them. But that’s not what we are talking about
The same principle applies to private sector rules as much as it does to the law.
The media sector has always had different rules because of the intersection with the public sphere.
If the BBC, ITV and Sky plus Facebook and Twitter decided to ban any mention or broadcast of Kier Starmer would that be right? I say not.
If Starmer was consistently calling for kids to get kitchen knives and try balancing them on their heads, yes. But it would be up to those individual organisations to decide to no-platform the views. However, Starmer is such a public figure that they might be best just pointing and laughing. The anti-vaxxers who promote vax conspiracy theories are bordering on evil - as Wakefield was (and is) with MMR.
This is related to the Gerry Adams debacle in the 1970s/80s, which was by government mandate.
The issue is this Congresswoman who has just been banned plus Trump.
A random loon doesn’t matter. A credible candidate for elected office does
Hang-on... Twitter have a very clear policy regarding misinformation about Covid-19. Taylor Greene knows what those rules are, has consistently ignored them, has received several short-term bans but still carried on.
It would be no different to OGH banning me if I persistently broke the rules of this site.
U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's personal Twitter account (@mtgreenee) has been permanently suspended for misinformation about COVID-19
I’ve made this point before. Isn’t anyone else worried about a major means if communication being restricted to politicians who agree with the owner of that channel.
Either Twitter is a publisher who can chose what to publish, or it is a medium for others communication with which case it can’t
If dangerous lies & hate speech are prohibited on a platform and most dangerous lies & hate speech come from MAGA loonies then MAGA loonies will inevitably bear the brunt of restrictions. I just can't get to seeing this as some worrying slippery slope towards the sort of sinister politically motivated censorship of free speech you get in (eg) China.
The problem is when someone is a credible candidate for high office and you restrict their ability to present their case.
Not very… democratic… is it
There are some much worse undemocratic actions in the US in favour of Trump. This rebalances it a bit.
That way lies madness
Fix the other problems instead. Don’t create new ones.
Politicians don't deserve special opt outs from the rest of us. If someone incites people to kill others then it shouldn't matter who they are for that to break the law.
Sure, if they break the law prosecute them. But that’s not what we are talking about
The same principle applies to private sector rules as much as it does to the law.
The media sector has always had different rules because of the intersection with the public sphere.
If the BBC, ITV and Sky plus Facebook and Twitter decided to ban any mention or broadcast of Kier Starmer would that be right? I say not.
If the b****** is advocating the violent overthrow of the democratically elected Government, yes ban Starmer.
Now that'd be one in the eye for all those calling him dull. Che Starmer!
Might lose the Blairites, though, so I can't see it.
U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's personal Twitter account (@mtgreenee) has been permanently suspended for misinformation about COVID-19
I’ve made this point before. Isn’t anyone else worried about a major means if communication being restricted to politicians who agree with the owner of that channel.
Either Twitter is a publisher who can chose what to publish, or it is a medium for others communication with which case it can’t
If dangerous lies & hate speech are prohibited on a platform and most dangerous lies & hate speech come from MAGA loonies then MAGA loonies will inevitably bear the brunt of restrictions. I just can't get to seeing this as some worrying slippery slope towards the sort of sinister politically motivated censorship of free speech you get in (eg) China.
The problem is when someone is a credible candidate for high office and you restrict their ability to present their case.
Not very… democratic… is it
There are some much worse undemocratic actions in the US in favour of Trump. This rebalances it a bit.
That way lies madness
Fix the other problems instead. Don’t create new ones.
Politicians don't deserve special opt outs from the rest of us. If someone incites people to kill others then it shouldn't matter who they are for that to break the law.
Sure, if they break the law prosecute them. But that’s not what we are talking about
The same principle applies to private sector rules as much as it does to the law.
The media sector has always had different rules because of the intersection with the public sphere.
If the BBC, ITV and Sky plus Facebook and Twitter decided to ban any mention or broadcast of Kier Starmer would that be right? I say not.
If Starmer was consistently calling for kids to get kitchen knives and try balancing them on their heads, yes. But it would be up to those individual organisations to decide to no-platform the views. However, Starmer is such a public figure that they might be best just pointing and laughing. The anti-vaxxers who promote vax conspiracy theories are bordering on evil - as Wakefield was (and is) with MMR.
This is related to the Gerry Adams debacle in the 1970s/80s, which was by government mandate.
The issue is this Congresswoman who has just been banned plus Trump.
A random loon doesn’t matter. A credible candidate for elected office does
Yes, I know the context. And it doesn't matter in this context IMO. In four days, we'll be at the anniversary of how an elected politician's evil/careless talk can lead to really bad things happening. And IMO that's not over: the consequences have polarised America even further.
I still can't understand how Trump isn't (edit) on sedition or treason charges by now. In many other countries around the world he would have been taken out and shot for trying to overthrow democracy like that.
Happy New Year everyone, hope everyone had a great Christmas. I’ve hosted 21 people, visited about 11 pubs and attended a great house party, so got my money’s worth. AFAIK I have never had Covid although maybe I have had it without any symptoms.
Hope all are well and hearty and looking forward to the year ahead.
Quiet New Year's for us - homemade beef curry - after a fabulous Christmas on the slopes in France. Feeling quite chipper at the moment.
Lovely. We are off to France this spring. How annoying were restrictions there?
The masks worn are supposed to be surgical or FFP2 but many wore just cloth ones and this was fine. People were reminded on ski lifts at bottom of resort only to put on masks. QR codes were periodically checked - that was easy. No problems really. I suppose a minor annoyance was that the cafe we went in for breakfast every morning had to scan our QR codes every day even though they knew us from previous days' visits; amusing really, I don't think you can suddenly become unvaccinated!
Obvs you need the French ban on tourism to be reversed before you go.
Cheers. Yes indeed. How were you able to go? I actually didn’t realise they’d banned tourists!
Wow. Don't you follow the news?
Yes, closely. But somehow I missed that. Was it announced over Christmas? How did @Stocky go skiing if they had banned tourists. I don’t understand…
We were due to fly out 18 Dec and on the morning of 16 Dec France announced tourism ban from 00:01 18th. Fuckety fuck.
We brought flight forward a day. Hoped our PCR tests came in time (they did). Got in under the wire. We were really lucky in that transfer company and accommodation both adjusted arrangements no problem. So we ended up having a day's extra holiday with much quieter slopes than usual. The flight home on Boxing Day had 21 passengers on it.
As an addition to above - thumbs-up to Easyjet. The adjustment to our flights was super-easy and we are grateful they didn't cancel our return flight as hardly anyone else was on it. I wonder if Ryanair would have been so good?
Depends on how much you were willing to pay them for a cheap flight.
U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's personal Twitter account (@mtgreenee) has been permanently suspended for misinformation about COVID-19
I’ve made this point before. Isn’t anyone else worried about a major means if communication being restricted to politicians who agree with the owner of that channel.
Either Twitter is a publisher who can chose what to publish, or it is a medium for others communication with which case it can’t
If dangerous lies & hate speech are prohibited on a platform and most dangerous lies & hate speech come from MAGA loonies then MAGA loonies will inevitably bear the brunt of restrictions. I just can't get to seeing this as some worrying slippery slope towards the sort of sinister politically motivated censorship of free speech you get in (eg) China.
The problem is when someone is a credible candidate for high office and you restrict their ability to present their case.
Not very… democratic… is it
There are some much worse undemocratic actions in the US in favour of Trump. This rebalances it a bit.
That way lies madness
Fix the other problems instead. Don’t create new ones.
Politicians don't deserve special opt outs from the rest of us. If someone incites people to kill others then it shouldn't matter who they are for that to break the law.
Sure, if they break the law prosecute them. But that’s not what we are talking about
The same principle applies to private sector rules as much as it does to the law.
The media sector has always had different rules because of the intersection with the public sphere.
If the BBC, ITV and Sky plus Facebook and Twitter decided to ban any mention or broadcast of Kier Starmer would that be right? I say not.
If Starmer was consistently calling for kids to get kitchen knives and try balancing them on their heads, yes. But it would be up to those individual organisations to decide to no-platform the views. However, Starmer is such a public figure that they might be best just pointing and laughing. The anti-vaxxers who promote vax conspiracy theories are bordering on evil - as Wakefield was (and is) with MMR.
This is related to the Gerry Adams debacle in the 1970s/80s, which was by government mandate.
The issue is this Congresswoman who has just been banned plus Trump.
A random loon doesn’t matter. A credible candidate for elected office does
Yes, I know the context. And it doesn't matter in this context IMO. In four days, we'll be at the anniversary of how an elected politician's evil/careless talk can lead to really bad things happening. And IMO that's not over: the consequences have polarised America even further.
I still can't understand how Trump isn't (edit) on sedition or treason charges by now. In many other countries around the world he would have been taken out and shot for trying to overthrow democracy like that.
The Metropolitan Police were asked to investigate.
And he does seem to have blown the whistle on the fact that care homes were polishing off oldies as fast as they could stick needles in them last year. Not sure why nobody minds about this
Happy New Year everyone, hope everyone had a great Christmas. I’ve hosted 21 people, visited about 11 pubs and attended a great house party, so got my money’s worth. AFAIK I have never had Covid although maybe I have had it without any symptoms.
Hope all are well and hearty and looking forward to the year ahead.
You are a right old Keith Moon..no roller in the swimming pool?
Keith Moon kept his roller in our car park on Kings Road. I know this because I was the young photographic assistant who was told by my dragon of a boss to tell that 'horrible man to get his car out of our car park!' I would then knock on his door. He wouldn't answer. I'd go back and say he wasn't in. "Of course he's in!! His car's in our car park. Keep knocking till he answers!!
Just having a look through the hospitalisation data and comparing it to last year. At the same point last year in hospital numbers rose from 7k to 11k in 9 days, this time it's gone from 7k to 13k in 9 days. That seems bad yet looking at the mechanical ventilation stats last time it went from about 1500 to just around 2200 over the same exact period, so no lag at all in that rise, this time it's not really moved at all, staying at around 750-780.
This is real time evidence that Omicron severity in a vaccinated population is significantly lower than Alpha was last year in an unvaccinated population (which seems obvious, but I've seen plenty of blue tick wankers still try and cast doubt on it). The other indication (though not hard evidence, we'll get that on Thursday) is that we're seeing a very high proportion of incidental hospital admissions, that is people who require treatment but also test positive. We could be well over 50% incidental admissions at this rate, in fact if we include non-overnight stays it may even be over 70%.
Just having a look through the hospitalisation data and comparing it to last year. At the same point last year in hospital numbers rose from 7k to 11k in 9 days, this time it's gone from 7k to 13k in 9 days. That seems bad yet looking at the mechanical ventilation stats last time it went from about 1500 to just around 2200 over the same exact period, so no lag at all in that rise, this time it's not really moved at all, staying at around 750-780.
This is real time evidence that Omicron severity in a vaccinated population is significantly lower than Alpha was last year in an unvaccinated population (which seems obvious, but I've seen plenty of blue tick wankers still try and cast doubt on it). The other indication (though not hard evidence, we'll get that on Thursday) is that we're seeing a very high proportion of incidental hospital admissions, that is people who require treatment but also test positive. We could be well over 50% incidental admissions at this rate, in fact if we include non-overnight stays it may even be over 70%.
Is it possible to get a total "in hospital" figure that we can compare to 2019? Start to look at hospital caseload like we do excess deaths.
Just having a look through the hospitalisation data and comparing it to last year. At the same point last year in hospital numbers rose from 7k to 11k in 9 days, this time it's gone from 7k to 13k in 9 days. That seems bad yet looking at the mechanical ventilation stats last time it went from about 1500 to just around 2200 over the same exact period, so no lag at all in that rise, this time it's not really moved at all, staying at around 750-780.
This is real time evidence that Omicron severity in a vaccinated population is significantly lower than Alpha was last year in an unvaccinated population (which seems obvious, but I've seen plenty of blue tick wankers still try and cast doubt on it). The other indication (though not hard evidence, we'll get that on Thursday) is that we're seeing a very high proportion of incidental hospital admissions, that is people who require treatment but also test positive. We could be well over 50% incidental admissions at this rate, in fact if we include non-overnight stays it may even be over 70%.
Is it possible to get a total "in hospital" figure that we can compare to 2019? Start to look at hospital caseload like we do excess deaths.
Yes, NHS England has got overall occupancy and overall admissions stats released weekly, again this is one of the series that isn't flashing red like it was last year and why NHS people are much more relaxed about this than the blue tick losers and media types pushing for lockdown.
Happy New Year everyone, hope everyone had a great Christmas. I’ve hosted 21 people, visited about 11 pubs and attended a great house party, so got my money’s worth. AFAIK I have never had Covid although maybe I have had it without any symptoms.
Hope all are well and hearty and looking forward to the year ahead.
You are a right old Keith Moon..no roller in the swimming pool?
Keith Moon kept his roller in our car park on Kings Road. I know this because I was the young photographic assistant who was told by my dragon of a boss to tell that 'horrible man to get his car out of our car park!' I would then knock on his door. He wouldn't answer. I'd go back and say he wasn't in. "Of course he's in!! His car's in our car park. Keep knocking till he answers!!
Somewhat naive of your boss to assume Keith Moon could only afford one roller.
Just having a look through the hospitalisation data and comparing it to last year. At the same point last year in hospital numbers rose from 7k to 11k in 9 days, this time it's gone from 7k to 13k in 9 days. That seems bad yet looking at the mechanical ventilation stats last time it went from about 1500 to just around 2200 over the same exact period, so no lag at all in that rise, this time it's not really moved at all, staying at around 750-780.
This is real time evidence that Omicron severity in a vaccinated population is significantly lower than Alpha was last year in an unvaccinated population (which seems obvious, but I've seen plenty of blue tick wankers still try and cast doubt on it). The other indication (though not hard evidence, we'll get that on Thursday) is that we're seeing a very high proportion of incidental hospital admissions, that is people who require treatment but also test positive. We could be well over 50% incidental admissions at this rate, in fact if we include non-overnight stays it may even be over 70%.
Is it possible to get a total "in hospital" figure that we can compare to 2019? Start to look at hospital caseload like we do excess deaths.
Yes, NHS England has got overall occupancy and overall admissions stats released weekly, again this is one of the series that isn't flashing red like it was last year and why NHS people are much more relaxed about this than the blue tick losers and media types pushing for lockdown.
I would expect it to be a bit lower than 2019 because so many vulnerable people died 'early' last winter. But still good news.
U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's personal Twitter account (@mtgreenee) has been permanently suspended for misinformation about COVID-19
I’ve made this point before. Isn’t anyone else worried about a major means if communication being restricted to politicians who agree with the owner of that channel.
Either Twitter is a publisher who can chose what to publish, or it is a medium for others communication with which case it can’t
If dangerous lies & hate speech are prohibited on a platform and most dangerous lies & hate speech come from MAGA loonies then MAGA loonies will inevitably bear the brunt of restrictions. I just can't get to seeing this as some worrying slippery slope towards the sort of sinister politically motivated censorship of free speech you get in (eg) China.
The problem is when someone is a credible candidate for high office and you restrict their ability to present their case.
Not very… democratic… is it
There are some much worse undemocratic actions in the US in favour of Trump. This rebalances it a bit.
That way lies madness
Fix the other problems instead. Don’t create new ones.
Politicians don't deserve special opt outs from the rest of us. If someone incites people to kill others then it shouldn't matter who they are for that to break the law.
Sure, if they break the law prosecute them. But that’s not what we are talking about
The same principle applies to private sector rules as much as it does to the law.
The media sector has always had different rules because of the intersection with the public sphere.
If the BBC, ITV and Sky plus Facebook and Twitter decided to ban any mention or broadcast of Kier Starmer would that be right? I say not.
If Starmer was consistently calling for kids to get kitchen knives and try balancing them on their heads, yes. But it would be up to those individual organisations to decide to no-platform the views. However, Starmer is such a public figure that they might be best just pointing and laughing. The anti-vaxxers who promote vax conspiracy theories are bordering on evil - as Wakefield was (and is) with MMR.
This is related to the Gerry Adams debacle in the 1970s/80s, which was by government mandate.
The issue is this Congresswoman who has just been banned plus Trump.
A random loon doesn’t matter. A credible candidate for elected office does
Yes, I know the context. And it doesn't matter in this context IMO. In four days, we'll be at the anniversary of how an elected politician's evil/careless talk can lead to really bad things happening. And IMO that's not over: the consequences have polarised America even further.
And the fundamental point is that: if he broke the law the state should prosecute. It shouldn’t be up to private companies to intervene in politics (or act in ways that feed the conspiracy theory bullshit)
As with Nick Griffin let them publish and be damned
How many countries must be in a similar position? Reliant on tourism and already poor. Nepal? Cambodia? Chunks of Africa. Polynesia. And so on
Pandemics often evolve into Famine and War, this may be the same
Greece, again? And Peru, which had been absolutely smashed (see economist excess deaths) and was reliant on students like me being completely oblivious to the going rate for everything.
Choosing to go to bat for Marjorie Taylor Green out of all 435 members of the house of reps is not gonna be a good look for you Charles.
I’ve no idea who she is, and know nothing about her except that apparently space lasers are responsible for forest fires 😂
The principle remains is that all candidates for elections in a free country have an equal right to be heard. If they break the law prosecute then. But to prevent them using a major channel of political communication is to distort elections
U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's personal Twitter account (@mtgreenee) has been permanently suspended for misinformation about COVID-19
I’ve made this point before. Isn’t anyone else worried about a major means if communication being restricted to politicians who agree with the owner of that channel.
Either Twitter is a publisher who can chose what to publish, or it is a medium for others communication with which case it can’t
If dangerous lies & hate speech are prohibited on a platform and most dangerous lies & hate speech come from MAGA loonies then MAGA loonies will inevitably bear the brunt of restrictions. I just can't get to seeing this as some worrying slippery slope towards the sort of sinister politically motivated censorship of free speech you get in (eg) China.
The problem is when someone is a credible candidate for high office and you restrict their ability to present their case.
Not very… democratic… is it
There are some much worse undemocratic actions in the US in favour of Trump. This rebalances it a bit.
That way lies madness
Fix the other problems instead. Don’t create new ones.
Politicians don't deserve special opt outs from the rest of us. If someone incites people to kill others then it shouldn't matter who they are for that to break the law.
Sure, if they break the law prosecute them. But that’s not what we are talking about
The same principle applies to private sector rules as much as it does to the law.
The media sector has always had different rules because of the intersection with the public sphere.
If the BBC, ITV and Sky plus Facebook and Twitter decided to ban any mention or broadcast of Kier Starmer would that be right? I say not.
If the b****** is advocating the violent overthrow of the democratically elected Government, yes ban Starmer.
Now that'd be one in the eye for all those calling him dull. Che Starmer!
Might lose the Blairites, though, so I can't see it.
Well, what a daft analogy for @Charles to make, comparing and contrasting a seditious traitor trying to undermine a democratically elected leader of the free world and Donald Trump.
U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's personal Twitter account (@mtgreenee) has been permanently suspended for misinformation about COVID-19
I’ve made this point before. Isn’t anyone else worried about a major means if communication being restricted to politicians who agree with the owner of that channel.
Either Twitter is a publisher who can chose what to publish, or it is a medium for others communication with which case it can’t
If dangerous lies & hate speech are prohibited on a platform and most dangerous lies & hate speech come from MAGA loonies then MAGA loonies will inevitably bear the brunt of restrictions. I just can't get to seeing this as some worrying slippery slope towards the sort of sinister politically motivated censorship of free speech you get in (eg) China.
The problem is when someone is a credible candidate for high office and you restrict their ability to present their case.
Not very… democratic… is it
There are some much worse undemocratic actions in the US in favour of Trump. This rebalances it a bit.
That way lies madness
Fix the other problems instead. Don’t create new ones.
Politicians don't deserve special opt outs from the rest of us. If someone incites people to kill others then it shouldn't matter who they are for that to break the law.
Sure, if they break the law prosecute them. But that’s not what we are talking about
The same principle applies to private sector rules as much as it does to the law.
The media sector has always had different rules because of the intersection with the public sphere.
If the BBC, ITV and Sky plus Facebook and Twitter decided to ban any mention or broadcast of Kier Starmer would that be right? I say not.
If Starmer was consistently calling for kids to get kitchen knives and try balancing them on their heads, yes. But it would be up to those individual organisations to decide to no-platform the views. However, Starmer is such a public figure that they might be best just pointing and laughing. The anti-vaxxers who promote vax conspiracy theories are bordering on evil - as Wakefield was (and is) with MMR.
This is related to the Gerry Adams debacle in the 1970s/80s, which was by government mandate.
The issue is this Congresswoman who has just been banned plus Trump.
A random loon doesn’t matter. A credible candidate for elected office does
Could you define "credible"?
On reflection you can delete that. Any candidate or someone who is realistically likely to become a candidate.
U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's personal Twitter account (@mtgreenee) has been permanently suspended for misinformation about COVID-19
I’ve made this point before. Isn’t anyone else worried about a major means if communication being restricted to politicians who agree with the owner of that channel.
Either Twitter is a publisher who can chose what to publish, or it is a medium for others communication with which case it can’t
If dangerous lies & hate speech are prohibited on a platform and most dangerous lies & hate speech come from MAGA loonies then MAGA loonies will inevitably bear the brunt of restrictions. I just can't get to seeing this as some worrying slippery slope towards the sort of sinister politically motivated censorship of free speech you get in (eg) China.
The problem is when someone is a credible candidate for high office and you restrict their ability to present their case.
Not very… democratic… is it
There are some much worse undemocratic actions in the US in favour of Trump. This rebalances it a bit.
That way lies madness
Fix the other problems instead. Don’t create new ones.
Politicians don't deserve special opt outs from the rest of us. If someone incites people to kill others then it shouldn't matter who they are for that to break the law.
Sure, if they break the law prosecute them. But that’s not what we are talking about
The same principle applies to private sector rules as much as it does to the law.
The media sector has always had different rules because of the intersection with the public sphere.
If the BBC, ITV and Sky plus Facebook and Twitter decided to ban any mention or broadcast of Kier Starmer would that be right? I say not.
If Starmer was consistently calling for kids to get kitchen knives and try balancing them on their heads, yes. But it would be up to those individual organisations to decide to no-platform the views. However, Starmer is such a public figure that they might be best just pointing and laughing. The anti-vaxxers who promote vax conspiracy theories are bordering on evil - as Wakefield was (and is) with MMR.
This is related to the Gerry Adams debacle in the 1970s/80s, which was by government mandate.
The issue is this Congresswoman who has just been banned plus Trump.
A random loon doesn’t matter. A credible candidate for elected office does
Hang-on... Twitter have a very clear policy regarding misinformation about Covid-19. Taylor Greene knows what those rules are, has consistently ignored them, has received several short-term bans but still carried on.
It would be no different to OGH banning me if I persistently broke the rules of this site.
Except
A) you are not running for office AFAIK PB is not a major source of political news and information for a material number of voters
Choosing to go to bat for Marjorie Taylor Green out of all 435 members of the house of reps is not gonna be a good look for you Charles.
I’ve no idea who she is, and know nothing about her except that apparently space lasers are responsible for forest fires 😂
The principle remains is that all candidates for elections in a free country have an equal right to be heard. If they break the law prosecute then. But to prevent them using a major channel of political communication is to distort elections
You are doing the thing where you defend a general principle based on the newspaper headline of a specific case and everyone talks about the specific case that justifies the action whilst you are ignorant of the specifics.
How many countries must be in a similar position? Reliant on tourism and already poor. Nepal? Cambodia? Chunks of Africa. Polynesia. And so on
Pandemics often evolve into Famine and War, this may be the same
Greece, again? And Peru, which had been absolutely smashed (see economist excess deaths) and was reliant on students like me being completely oblivious to the going rate for everything.
Yes, those two occurred to me, as well. Peru has been hammered, and is STILL locked down. My brother lives near Cusco and he says nothing movies. No tourists at all, basically
What is that doing to their economy? How can it continue? Turbulent prospects for the world, especially the poor south
U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's personal Twitter account (@mtgreenee) has been permanently suspended for misinformation about COVID-19
I’ve made this point before. Isn’t anyone else worried about a major means if communication being restricted to politicians who agree with the owner of that channel.
Either Twitter is a publisher who can chose what to publish, or it is a medium for others communication with which case it can’t
If dangerous lies & hate speech are prohibited on a platform and most dangerous lies & hate speech come from MAGA loonies then MAGA loonies will inevitably bear the brunt of restrictions. I just can't get to seeing this as some worrying slippery slope towards the sort of sinister politically motivated censorship of free speech you get in (eg) China.
The problem is when someone is a credible candidate for high office and you restrict their ability to present their case.
Not very… democratic… is it
There are some much worse undemocratic actions in the US in favour of Trump. This rebalances it a bit.
That way lies madness
Fix the other problems instead. Don’t create new ones.
Politicians don't deserve special opt outs from the rest of us. If someone incites people to kill others then it shouldn't matter who they are for that to break the law.
Sure, if they break the law prosecute them. But that’s not what we are talking about
The same principle applies to private sector rules as much as it does to the law.
The media sector has always had different rules because of the intersection with the public sphere.
If the BBC, ITV and Sky plus Facebook and Twitter decided to ban any mention or broadcast of Kier Starmer would that be right? I say not.
If Starmer was consistently calling for kids to get kitchen knives and try balancing them on their heads, yes. But it would be up to those individual organisations to decide to no-platform the views. However, Starmer is such a public figure that they might be best just pointing and laughing. The anti-vaxxers who promote vax conspiracy theories are bordering on evil - as Wakefield was (and is) with MMR.
This is related to the Gerry Adams debacle in the 1970s/80s, which was by government mandate.
The issue is this Congresswoman who has just been banned plus Trump.
A random loon doesn’t matter. A credible candidate for elected office does
Hang-on... Twitter have a very clear policy regarding misinformation about Covid-19. Taylor Greene knows what those rules are, has consistently ignored them, has received several short-term bans but still carried on.
It would be no different to OGH banning me if I persistently broke the rules of this site.
Except
A) you are not running for office AFAIK PB is not a major source of political news and information for a material number of voters
Neither OGH nor twitter is any more obliged to give a platform to those who are "running for office" any more than the Daily Telegraph has to give air time to the Socialist Workers Party.
Choosing to go to bat for Marjorie Taylor Green out of all 435 members of the house of reps is not gonna be a good look for you Charles.
I’ve no idea who she is, and know nothing about her except that apparently space lasers are responsible for forest fires 😂
The principle remains is that all candidates for elections in a free country have an equal right to be heard. If they break the law prosecute then. But to prevent them using a major channel of political communication is to distort elections
You are doing the thing where you defend a general principle based on the newspaper headline of a specific case and everyone talks about the specific case that justifies the action whilst you are ignorant of the specifics.
Yes. I’m defending the principle of free elections. I don’t know who MTG is and don’t really give a shit.
U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's personal Twitter account (@mtgreenee) has been permanently suspended for misinformation about COVID-19
I’ve made this point before. Isn’t anyone else worried about a major means if communication being restricted to politicians who agree with the owner of that channel.
Either Twitter is a publisher who can chose what to publish, or it is a medium for others communication with which case it can’t
If dangerous lies & hate speech are prohibited on a platform and most dangerous lies & hate speech come from MAGA loonies then MAGA loonies will inevitably bear the brunt of restrictions. I just can't get to seeing this as some worrying slippery slope towards the sort of sinister politically motivated censorship of free speech you get in (eg) China.
The problem is when someone is a credible candidate for high office and you restrict their ability to present their case.
Not very… democratic… is it
There are some much worse undemocratic actions in the US in favour of Trump. This rebalances it a bit.
That way lies madness
Fix the other problems instead. Don’t create new ones.
Politicians don't deserve special opt outs from the rest of us. If someone incites people to kill others then it shouldn't matter who they are for that to break the law.
Sure, if they break the law prosecute them. But that’s not what we are talking about
The same principle applies to private sector rules as much as it does to the law.
The media sector has always had different rules because of the intersection with the public sphere.
If the BBC, ITV and Sky plus Facebook and Twitter decided to ban any mention or broadcast of Kier Starmer would that be right? I say not.
If Starmer was consistently calling for kids to get kitchen knives and try balancing them on their heads, yes. But it would be up to those individual organisations to decide to no-platform the views. However, Starmer is such a public figure that they might be best just pointing and laughing. The anti-vaxxers who promote vax conspiracy theories are bordering on evil - as Wakefield was (and is) with MMR.
This is related to the Gerry Adams debacle in the 1970s/80s, which was by government mandate.
The issue is this Congresswoman who has just been banned plus Trump.
A random loon doesn’t matter. A credible candidate for elected office does
Hang-on... Twitter have a very clear policy regarding misinformation about Covid-19. Taylor Greene knows what those rules are, has consistently ignored them, has received several short-term bans but still carried on.
It would be no different to OGH banning me if I persistently broke the rules of this site.
Except
A) you are not running for office AFAIK PB is not a major source of political news and information for a material number of voters
Neither OGH nor twitter is any more obliged to give a platform to those who are "running for office" any more than the Daily Telegraph has to give air time to the Socialist Workers Party.
No, that's a great idea. The Telegraph has to carry a communist column from now on. Given the number of (former?) Revolutionary Communist Party members working for the Tory party that won't be that hard for them.
@Charles its not like you to advocate for some to be above the rules
I’m saying it’s not up to a private company to interfere in a democracy.
If trump or Majorie wotsit break the law then prosecute them.
If my local café was contacted by our MP (*), wanting to hold a talk there, and they refused for whatever reason, would that be 'interfering with democracy' ? Of course not.
Private companies should be allowed to do whatever the heck they like within the law. If they have well-publicised rules, and someone breaks them, it's right for them to treat the 'customer' no differently to anyone else.
Now, if this was aimed directly at that elected official, and they were being treated differently to other elected officials saying the same thing, it would be a different matter.
I also don't think you've thought this through on the other side: what happens if the government is not nice and snuggly? Should the private companies broadcast whatever the government wants lest they be seen as 'interfering in democracy' ?
Choosing to go to bat for Marjorie Taylor Green out of all 435 members of the house of reps is not gonna be a good look for you Charles.
I’ve no idea who she is, and know nothing about her except that apparently space lasers are responsible for forest fires 😂
The principle remains is that all candidates for elections in a free country have an equal right to be heard. If they break the law prosecute then. But to prevent them using a major channel of political communication is to distort elections
You are doing the thing where you defend a general principle based on the newspaper headline of a specific case and everyone talks about the specific case that justifies the action whilst you are ignorant of the specifics.
And you and the rest here are defending the utterly indefensible. You yourself said that Twitter allows open Nazis to post on its platform. That this is true is surely proof that Trump's ban had nothing whatever to do with the content of what he was posting; it was simply an intervention by Twitter in the democratic process.
U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's personal Twitter account (@mtgreenee) has been permanently suspended for misinformation about COVID-19
I’ve made this point before. Isn’t anyone else worried about a major means if communication being restricted to politicians who agree with the owner of that channel.
Either Twitter is a publisher who can chose what to publish, or it is a medium for others communication with which case it can’t
If dangerous lies & hate speech are prohibited on a platform and most dangerous lies & hate speech come from MAGA loonies then MAGA loonies will inevitably bear the brunt of restrictions. I just can't get to seeing this as some worrying slippery slope towards the sort of sinister politically motivated censorship of free speech you get in (eg) China.
The problem is when someone is a credible candidate for high office and you restrict their ability to present their case.
Not very… democratic… is it
There are some much worse undemocratic actions in the US in favour of Trump. This rebalances it a bit.
That way lies madness
Fix the other problems instead. Don’t create new ones.
Politicians don't deserve special opt outs from the rest of us. If someone incites people to kill others then it shouldn't matter who they are for that to break the law.
Sure, if they break the law prosecute them. But that’s not what we are talking about
The same principle applies to private sector rules as much as it does to the law.
The media sector has always had different rules because of the intersection with the public sphere.
If the BBC, ITV and Sky plus Facebook and Twitter decided to ban any mention or broadcast of Kier Starmer would that be right? I say not.
If Starmer was consistently calling for kids to get kitchen knives and try balancing them on their heads, yes. But it would be up to those individual organisations to decide to no-platform the views. However, Starmer is such a public figure that they might be best just pointing and laughing. The anti-vaxxers who promote vax conspiracy theories are bordering on evil - as Wakefield was (and is) with MMR.
This is related to the Gerry Adams debacle in the 1970s/80s, which was by government mandate.
The issue is this Congresswoman who has just been banned plus Trump.
A random loon doesn’t matter. A credible candidate for elected office does
Hang-on... Twitter have a very clear policy regarding misinformation about Covid-19. Taylor Greene knows what those rules are, has consistently ignored them, has received several short-term bans but still carried on.
It would be no different to OGH banning me if I persistently broke the rules of this site.
Except
A) you are not running for office AFAIK PB is not a major source of political news and information for a material number of voters
Neither OGH nor twitter is any more obliged to give a platform to those who are "running for office" any more than the Daily Telegraph has to give air time to the Socialist Workers Party.
OGH and the Telegraph not as there are alternatives. Twitter and Facebook are in a different category (like the BBC, Sky & ITV)
Choosing to go to bat for Marjorie Taylor Green out of all 435 members of the house of reps is not gonna be a good look for you Charles.
I’ve no idea who she is, and know nothing about her except that apparently space lasers are responsible for forest fires 😂
The principle remains is that all candidates for elections in a free country have an equal right to be heard. If they break the law prosecute then. But to prevent them using a major channel of political communication is to distort elections
You are doing the thing where you defend a general principle based on the newspaper headline of a specific case and everyone talks about the specific case that justifies the action whilst you are ignorant of the specifics.
Yes. I’m defending the principle of free elections. I don’t know who MTG is and don’t really give a shit.
This is not interfering with 'free elections'. The companies have rules - sensible rules, by the sound of it - and are hopefully applying those rules uniformly. If they applied them very unevenly you may have more of a point; but it's up to you to provide evidence of that in this discussion.
Choosing to go to bat for Marjorie Taylor Green out of all 435 members of the house of reps is not gonna be a good look for you Charles.
I’ve no idea who she is, and know nothing about her except that apparently space lasers are responsible for forest fires 😂
The principle remains is that all candidates for elections in a free country have an equal right to be heard. If they break the law prosecute then. But to prevent them using a major channel of political communication is to distort elections
You are doing the thing where you defend a general principle based on the newspaper headline of a specific case and everyone talks about the specific case that justifies the action whilst you are ignorant of the specifics.
And you and the rest here are defending the utterly indefensible. You yourself said that Twitter allows open Nazis to post on its platform. That this is true is surely proof that Trump's ban had nothing whatever to do with the content of what he was posting; it was simply an intervention by Twitter in the democratic process.
U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's personal Twitter account (@mtgreenee) has been permanently suspended for misinformation about COVID-19
I’ve made this point before. Isn’t anyone else worried about a major means if communication being restricted to politicians who agree with the owner of that channel.
Either Twitter is a publisher who can chose what to publish, or it is a medium for others communication with which case it can’t
If dangerous lies & hate speech are prohibited on a platform and most dangerous lies & hate speech come from MAGA loonies then MAGA loonies will inevitably bear the brunt of restrictions. I just can't get to seeing this as some worrying slippery slope towards the sort of sinister politically motivated censorship of free speech you get in (eg) China.
The problem is when someone is a credible candidate for high office and you restrict their ability to present their case.
Not very… democratic… is it
There are some much worse undemocratic actions in the US in favour of Trump. This rebalances it a bit.
That way lies madness
Fix the other problems instead. Don’t create new ones.
Politicians don't deserve special opt outs from the rest of us. If someone incites people to kill others then it shouldn't matter who they are for that to break the law.
Sure, if they break the law prosecute them. But that’s not what we are talking about
The same principle applies to private sector rules as much as it does to the law.
The media sector has always had different rules because of the intersection with the public sphere.
If the BBC, ITV and Sky plus Facebook and Twitter decided to ban any mention or broadcast of Kier Starmer would that be right? I say not.
If Starmer was consistently calling for kids to get kitchen knives and try balancing them on their heads, yes. But it would be up to those individual organisations to decide to no-platform the views. However, Starmer is such a public figure that they might be best just pointing and laughing. The anti-vaxxers who promote vax conspiracy theories are bordering on evil - as Wakefield was (and is) with MMR.
This is related to the Gerry Adams debacle in the 1970s/80s, which was by government mandate.
The issue is this Congresswoman who has just been banned plus Trump.
A random loon doesn’t matter. A credible candidate for elected office does
Hang-on... Twitter have a very clear policy regarding misinformation about Covid-19. Taylor Greene knows what those rules are, has consistently ignored them, has received several short-term bans but still carried on.
It would be no different to OGH banning me if I persistently broke the rules of this site.
Except
A) you are not running for office AFAIK PB is not a major source of political news and information for a material number of voters
Neither OGH nor twitter is any more obliged to give a platform to those who are "running for office" any more than the Daily Telegraph has to give air time to the Socialist Workers Party.
Nope. Twitter and Facebook (and the rest) are entirely different to any media outlet that we have seen, by orders of magnitude and dimension. The Daily Telegraph is not used and read by 5 billion people, the Daily Mirror is not the major media platform for every western politician alive. Nor has any previous media outfit had the instantaneous, aggressive, addictive quality of social media, which has so clearly coarsened our politics and increased its nastiness
You cannot simultaneously bemoan the rise of Trump and the growing threat to American democracy (as you rightly do) then say Oh social media can do what it likes. Trump used Twitter's unseemly power to fuel his bollocks, and even if he is now banned on a Twitter-whim other demagogues (of left and right and any religion) will do the same.
Social media needs to be reined in, taxed properly, and regulated; the giants are like the oil companies of the early 20th century (times a thousand): horrible monopolies/cartels with way too much power. The US government needs to stand up to Twitter and Zuckerberg the way it stood up to Standard Oil
Remember that Facebook and Twitter prohibited discussion of the lab leak theory for a year, and came quite close to successfully censoring forever the most plausible explanation of a plague that has killed 20 million people. This is Double Plus UnGood
U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's personal Twitter account (@mtgreenee) has been permanently suspended for misinformation about COVID-19
I’ve made this point before. Isn’t anyone else worried about a major means if communication being restricted to politicians who agree with the owner of that channel.
Either Twitter is a publisher who can chose what to publish, or it is a medium for others communication with which case it can’t
If dangerous lies & hate speech are prohibited on a platform and most dangerous lies & hate speech come from MAGA loonies then MAGA loonies will inevitably bear the brunt of restrictions. I just can't get to seeing this as some worrying slippery slope towards the sort of sinister politically motivated censorship of free speech you get in (eg) China.
The problem is when someone is a credible candidate for high office and you restrict their ability to present their case.
Not very… democratic… is it
There are some much worse undemocratic actions in the US in favour of Trump. This rebalances it a bit.
That way lies madness
Fix the other problems instead. Don’t create new ones.
Politicians don't deserve special opt outs from the rest of us. If someone incites people to kill others then it shouldn't matter who they are for that to break the law.
Sure, if they break the law prosecute them. But that’s not what we are talking about
The same principle applies to private sector rules as much as it does to the law.
The media sector has always had different rules because of the intersection with the public sphere.
If the BBC, ITV and Sky plus Facebook and Twitter decided to ban any mention or broadcast of Kier Starmer would that be right? I say not.
If Starmer was consistently calling for kids to get kitchen knives and try balancing them on their heads, yes. But it would be up to those individual organisations to decide to no-platform the views. However, Starmer is such a public figure that they might be best just pointing and laughing. The anti-vaxxers who promote vax conspiracy theories are bordering on evil - as Wakefield was (and is) with MMR.
This is related to the Gerry Adams debacle in the 1970s/80s, which was by government mandate.
The issue is this Congresswoman who has just been banned plus Trump.
A random loon doesn’t matter. A credible candidate for elected office does
Hang-on... Twitter have a very clear policy regarding misinformation about Covid-19. Taylor Greene knows what those rules are, has consistently ignored them, has received several short-term bans but still carried on.
It would be no different to OGH banning me if I persistently broke the rules of this site.
Except
A) you are not running for office AFAIK PB is not a major source of political news and information for a material number of voters
Neither OGH nor twitter is any more obliged to give a platform to those who are "running for office" any more than the Daily Telegraph has to give air time to the Socialist Workers Party.
Yet this Congresswoman was not just running for office, she had been elected to office. That is a totally different matter until they lose a re election bid or do not run again
@Charles its not like you to advocate for some to be above the rules
I’m saying it’s not up to a private company to interfere in a democracy.
If trump or Majorie wotsit break the law then prosecute them.
If my local café was contacted by our MP (*), wanting to hold a talk there, and they refused for whatever reason, would that be 'interfering with democracy' ? Of course not.
Private companies should be allowed to do whatever the heck they like within the law. If they have well-publicised rules, and someone breaks them, it's right for them to treat the 'customer' no differently to anyone else.
Now, if this was aimed directly at that elected official, and they were being treated differently to other elected officials saying the same thing, it would be a different matter.
I also don't think you've thought this through on the other side: what happens if the government is not nice and snuggly? Should the private companies broadcast whatever the government wants lest they be seen as 'interfering in democracy' ?
(*) I doubt our MP could afford the prices ...
It’s a question of scale and reach.
Your cafe can be replaced. Twitter and Facebook can’t (in the sense of current reach).
Choosing to go to bat for Marjorie Taylor Green out of all 435 members of the house of reps is not gonna be a good look for you Charles.
I’ve no idea who she is, and know nothing about her except that apparently space lasers are responsible for forest fires 😂
The principle remains is that all candidates for elections in a free country have an equal right to be heard. If they break the law prosecute then. But to prevent them using a major channel of political communication is to distort elections
You are doing the thing where you defend a general principle based on the newspaper headline of a specific case and everyone talks about the specific case that justifies the action whilst you are ignorant of the specifics.
And you and the rest here are defending the utterly indefensible. You yourself said that Twitter allows open Nazis to post on its platform. That this is true is surely proof that Trump's ban had nothing whatever to do with the content of what he was posting; it was simply an intervention by Twitter in the democratic process.
Choosing to go to bat for Marjorie Taylor Green out of all 435 members of the house of reps is not gonna be a good look for you Charles.
I’ve no idea who she is, and know nothing about her except that apparently space lasers are responsible for forest fires 😂
The principle remains is that all candidates for elections in a free country have an equal right to be heard. If they break the law prosecute then. But to prevent them using a major channel of political communication is to distort elections
You are doing the thing where you defend a general principle based on the newspaper headline of a specific case and everyone talks about the specific case that justifies the action whilst you are ignorant of the specifics.
Yes. I’m defending the principle of free elections. I don’t know who MTG is and don’t really give a shit.
Not knowing or giving a shit really doesn't really strengthen your position, does it? She has been allowed to keep her official account on which she tweets electorally relevant material anyway; she used the private account to share lethal misinformation about the danger of covid. Are you saying that if she had used it to advocate paedophilia, say, it would be sacrosanct?
Choosing to go to bat for Marjorie Taylor Green out of all 435 members of the house of reps is not gonna be a good look for you Charles.
I’ve no idea who she is, and know nothing about her except that apparently space lasers are responsible for forest fires 😂
The principle remains is that all candidates for elections in a free country have an equal right to be heard. If they break the law prosecute then. But to prevent them using a major channel of political communication is to distort elections
You are doing the thing where you defend a general principle based on the newspaper headline of a specific case and everyone talks about the specific case that justifies the action whilst you are ignorant of the specifics.
Yes. I’m defending the principle of free elections. I don’t know who MTG is and don’t really give a shit.
This is not interfering with 'free elections'. The companies have rules - sensible rules, by the sound of it - and are hopefully applying those rules uniformly. If they applied them very unevenly you may have more of a point; but it's up to you to provide evidence of that in this discussion.
It is. Twitter is a key part of a former POTUS’s election technique. They have made the decision to ban him. How anyone can claim that is not going to impact on the election result I don’t know.
So, if it is going to impact, you are really comfortable with giving a private company that power?
Choosing to go to bat for Marjorie Taylor Green out of all 435 members of the house of reps is not gonna be a good look for you Charles.
I’ve no idea who she is, and know nothing about her except that apparently space lasers are responsible for forest fires 😂
The principle remains is that all candidates for elections in a free country have an equal right to be heard. If they break the law prosecute then. But to prevent them using a major channel of political communication is to distort elections
You are doing the thing where you defend a general principle based on the newspaper headline of a specific case and everyone talks about the specific case that justifies the action whilst you are ignorant of the specifics.
And you and the rest here are defending the utterly indefensible. You yourself said that Twitter allows open Nazis to post on its platform. That this is true is surely proof that Trump's ban had nothing whatever to do with the content of what he was posting; it was simply an intervention by Twitter in the democratic process.
Yes. They were protecting it.
This is the Twitter which disallowed any discussion of the "lab leak hypothesis" for a whole year. As did Facebook
Yet this is the same Twitter which "prohibits misinformation about Covid-19"??? What a fucking load of shit.
THE NATIONAL INTEREST MAY 26, 2021 How Twitter Cultivated the Media’s Lab-Leak Fiasco
Choosing to go to bat for Marjorie Taylor Green out of all 435 members of the house of reps is not gonna be a good look for you Charles.
I’ve no idea who she is, and know nothing about her except that apparently space lasers are responsible for forest fires 😂
The principle remains is that all candidates for elections in a free country have an equal right to be heard. If they break the law prosecute then. But to prevent them using a major channel of political communication is to distort elections
You are doing the thing where you defend a general principle based on the newspaper headline of a specific case and everyone talks about the specific case that justifies the action whilst you are ignorant of the specifics.
And you and the rest here are defending the utterly indefensible. You yourself said that Twitter allows open Nazis to post on its platform. That this is true is surely proof that Trump's ban had nothing whatever to do with the content of what he was posting; it was simply an intervention by Twitter in the democratic process.
Yes. They were protecting it.
This is the Twitter which disallowed any discussion of the "lab leak hypothesis" for a whole year. As did Facebook
Yet this is the same Twitter which "prohibits misinformation about Covid-19"??? What a fucking load of shit.
THE NATIONAL INTEREST MAY 26, 2021 How Twitter Cultivated the Media’s Lab-Leak Fiasco
Lefties just like Twitter because it leans left. It is no paragon of objectivity and it is deeply dangerous in its caprices
I'm not a leftie, I'm a liberal. as such I like the separation of powers. If you think certain companies are too powerful and need to be broken up, I'm listening. But let's not pretend that in the great Twitter v Trump debate that Twitter are the bad guys. That would require a level of gymnastic foolishness even beyond your supple limits.
Choosing to go to bat for Marjorie Taylor Green out of all 435 members of the house of reps is not gonna be a good look for you Charles.
I’ve no idea who she is, and know nothing about her except that apparently space lasers are responsible for forest fires 😂
The principle remains is that all candidates for elections in a free country have an equal right to be heard. If they break the law prosecute then. But to prevent them using a major channel of political communication is to distort elections
You are doing the thing where you defend a general principle based on the newspaper headline of a specific case and everyone talks about the specific case that justifies the action whilst you are ignorant of the specifics.
Yes. I’m defending the principle of free elections. I don’t know who MTG is and don’t really give a shit.
This is not interfering with 'free elections'. The companies have rules - sensible rules, by the sound of it - and are hopefully applying those rules uniformly. If they applied them very unevenly you may have more of a point; but it's up to you to provide evidence of that in this discussion.
It is. Twitter is a key part of a former POTUS’s election technique. They have made the decision to ban him. How anyone can claim that is not going to impact on the election result I don’t know.
So, if it is going to impact, you are really comfortable with giving a private company that power?
Isn't it the case that he gave them that power by building his election technique on a private platform owned by someone else? What a plonker. If he was any good at The Art Of The Deal he'd have come to an understanding with them as to what they would permit, and if he were the billionaire he claims to be he'd have bought twitter anyway.
Anyways. I'd love to see a complete ban on any and all private companies involvement in any election whatsoever. It'd be a way of keeping the Tories' nonsense out.
Choosing to go to bat for Marjorie Taylor Green out of all 435 members of the house of reps is not gonna be a good look for you Charles.
I’ve no idea who she is, and know nothing about her except that apparently space lasers are responsible for forest fires 😂
The principle remains is that all candidates for elections in a free country have an equal right to be heard. If they break the law prosecute then. But to prevent them using a major channel of political communication is to distort elections
You are doing the thing where you defend a general principle based on the newspaper headline of a specific case and everyone talks about the specific case that justifies the action whilst you are ignorant of the specifics.
Yes. I’m defending the principle of free elections. I don’t know who MTG is and don’t really give a shit.
This is not interfering with 'free elections'. The companies have rules - sensible rules, by the sound of it - and are hopefully applying those rules uniformly. If they applied them very unevenly you may have more of a point; but it's up to you to provide evidence of that in this discussion.
It is. Twitter is a key part of a former POTUS’s election technique. They have made the decision to ban him. How anyone can claim that is not going to impact on the election result I don’t know.
So, if it is going to impact, you are really comfortable with giving a private company that power?
Many Trumpites and some of the far right are instead gravitating to alternative social media sites like Parler
Choosing to go to bat for Marjorie Taylor Green out of all 435 members of the house of reps is not gonna be a good look for you Charles.
I’ve no idea who she is, and know nothing about her except that apparently space lasers are responsible for forest fires 😂
The principle remains is that all candidates for elections in a free country have an equal right to be heard. If they break the law prosecute then. But to prevent them using a major channel of political communication is to distort elections
You are doing the thing where you defend a general principle based on the newspaper headline of a specific case and everyone talks about the specific case that justifies the action whilst you are ignorant of the specifics.
And you and the rest here are defending the utterly indefensible. You yourself said that Twitter allows open Nazis to post on its platform. That this is true is surely proof that Trump's ban had nothing whatever to do with the content of what he was posting; it was simply an intervention by Twitter in the democratic process.
He wasn't banned until after the election.
Some folk think storming the Capitol was part of the democratic process.
It's wonderful that Twitter exists, without which we can't have democracy. Apparently.
Slightly rearranged, Twitter was wonderful, it's that with which we can't have democracy.
(Very nearly, anyway.)
It's true though, Twitter has led to those dim witted loons with short soundbites and no understanding of the issues - Trump, Modi, Johnson/Cummings, Corbyn, Macron, Grillo etc - dominating serious figures who can't summarise things because they realise life is complicated.
They existed before of course - Chavez, Putin, Netanyahu - but their recent proliferation since Twitter went viral is surely not a coincidence.
Choosing to go to bat for Marjorie Taylor Green out of all 435 members of the house of reps is not gonna be a good look for you Charles.
I’ve no idea who she is, and know nothing about her except that apparently space lasers are responsible for forest fires 😂
The principle remains is that all candidates for elections in a free country have an equal right to be heard. If they break the law prosecute then. But to prevent them using a major channel of political communication is to distort elections
You are doing the thing where you defend a general principle based on the newspaper headline of a specific case and everyone talks about the specific case that justifies the action whilst you are ignorant of the specifics.
Yes. I’m defending the principle of free elections. I don’t know who MTG is and don’t really give a shit.
Not knowing or giving a shit really doesn't really strengthen your position, does it? She has been allowed to keep her official account on which she tweets electorally relevant material anyway; she used the private account to share lethal misinformation about the danger of covid. Are you saying that if she had used it to advocate paedophilia, say, it would be sacrosanct?
If she breaks the law (or incites breaking the law) prosecute her.
If she advocates something unpleasant without crossing the legal line then let the electorate be her judge
@Charles its not like you to advocate for some to be above the rules
I’m saying it’s not up to a private company to interfere in a democracy.
If trump or Majorie wotsit break the law then prosecute them.
If my local café was contacted by our MP (*), wanting to hold a talk there, and they refused for whatever reason, would that be 'interfering with democracy' ? Of course not.
Private companies should be allowed to do whatever the heck they like within the law. If they have well-publicised rules, and someone breaks them, it's right for them to treat the 'customer' no differently to anyone else.
Now, if this was aimed directly at that elected official, and they were being treated differently to other elected officials saying the same thing, it would be a different matter.
I also don't think you've thought this through on the other side: what happens if the government is not nice and snuggly? Should the private companies broadcast whatever the government wants lest they be seen as 'interfering in democracy' ?
(*) I doubt our MP could afford the prices ...
It’s a question of scale and reach.
Your cafe can be replaced. Twitter and Facebook can’t (in the sense of current reach).
Non cuddly politicians have a right to be heard.
Well, I don't agree with that. But let's say you are right: at what point does it become unacceptable? If it's fine for a cafe not to allow it, but wrong for Twitter, what about other sites? At what point does it change from being okay to wrong? At what level of potential viewership can they not be 'replaced'?
IMV politicians have a right to be heard to the same extent as the rest of us. If I was saying some of the sh*t she was, then hopefully I'd be treated the same way if it came to the organisation's attention. Being a politician *should* have no effect on the rules under which their speech is judged. Where they have such protections - such as in parliament - they are rarely used, and is equal for all politicians - with obvious exceptions.
Anyways. I'd love to see a complete ban on any and all private companies involvement in any election whatsoever. It'd be a way of keeping the Tories' nonsense out.
The Tories are very limited, but they're not a private company.
Just having a look through the hospitalisation data and comparing it to last year. At the same point last year in hospital numbers rose from 7k to 11k in 9 days, this time it's gone from 7k to 13k in 9 days. That seems bad yet looking at the mechanical ventilation stats last time it went from about 1500 to just around 2200 over the same exact period, so no lag at all in that rise, this time it's not really moved at all, staying at around 750-780.
This is real time evidence that Omicron severity in a vaccinated population is significantly lower than Alpha was last year in an unvaccinated population (which seems obvious, but I've seen plenty of blue tick wankers still try and cast doubt on it). The other indication (though not hard evidence, we'll get that on Thursday) is that we're seeing a very high proportion of incidental hospital admissions, that is people who require treatment but also test positive. We could be well over 50% incidental admissions at this rate, in fact if we include non-overnight stays it may even be over 70%.
Is it possible to get a total "in hospital" figure that we can compare to 2019? Start to look at hospital caseload like we do excess deaths.
Yes, NHS England has got overall occupancy and overall admissions stats released weekly, again this is one of the series that isn't flashing red like it was last year and why NHS people are much more relaxed about this than the blue tick losers and media types pushing for lockdown.
'Conservative candidate Valérie Pécresse also objected to the position of the EU flag: "Preside over Europe yes, erase French identity no!", she tweeted'
Choosing to go to bat for Marjorie Taylor Green out of all 435 members of the house of reps is not gonna be a good look for you Charles.
I’ve no idea who she is, and know nothing about her except that apparently space lasers are responsible for forest fires 😂
The principle remains is that all candidates for elections in a free country have an equal right to be heard. If they break the law prosecute then. But to prevent them using a major channel of political communication is to distort elections
You are doing the thing where you defend a general principle based on the newspaper headline of a specific case and everyone talks about the specific case that justifies the action whilst you are ignorant of the specifics.
Yes. I’m defending the principle of free elections. I don’t know who MTG is and don’t really give a shit.
Not knowing or giving a shit really doesn't really strengthen your position, does it? She has been allowed to keep her official account on which she tweets electorally relevant material anyway; she used the private account to share lethal misinformation about the danger of covid. Are you saying that if she had used it to advocate paedophilia, say, it would be sacrosanct?
If she breaks the law (or incites breaking the law) prosecute her.
If she advocates something unpleasant without crossing the legal line then let the electorate be her judge
If Twitter breaks the law (or incites breaking the law) prosecute it.
If it marginalises people from its platform in a way you don't approve of without crossing the legal line then let its customers be its judge.
Choosing to go to bat for Marjorie Taylor Green out of all 435 members of the house of reps is not gonna be a good look for you Charles.
I’ve no idea who she is, and know nothing about her except that apparently space lasers are responsible for forest fires 😂
The principle remains is that all candidates for elections in a free country have an equal right to be heard. If they break the law prosecute then. But to prevent them using a major channel of political communication is to distort elections
You are doing the thing where you defend a general principle based on the newspaper headline of a specific case and everyone talks about the specific case that justifies the action whilst you are ignorant of the specifics.
And you and the rest here are defending the utterly indefensible. You yourself said that Twitter allows open Nazis to post on its platform. That this is true is surely proof that Trump's ban had nothing whatever to do with the content of what he was posting; it was simply an intervention by Twitter in the democratic process.
Yes. They were protecting it.
This is the Twitter which disallowed any discussion of the "lab leak hypothesis" for a whole year. As did Facebook
Yet this is the same Twitter which "prohibits misinformation about Covid-19"??? What a fucking load of shit.
THE NATIONAL INTEREST MAY 26, 2021 How Twitter Cultivated the Media’s Lab-Leak Fiasco
Choosing to go to bat for Marjorie Taylor Green out of all 435 members of the house of reps is not gonna be a good look for you Charles.
I’ve no idea who she is, and know nothing about her except that apparently space lasers are responsible for forest fires 😂
The principle remains is that all candidates for elections in a free country have an equal right to be heard. If they break the law prosecute then. But to prevent them using a major channel of political communication is to distort elections
You are doing the thing where you defend a general principle based on the newspaper headline of a specific case and everyone talks about the specific case that justifies the action whilst you are ignorant of the specifics.
And you and the rest here are defending the utterly indefensible. You yourself said that Twitter allows open Nazis to post on its platform. That this is true is surely proof that Trump's ban had nothing whatever to do with the content of what he was posting; it was simply an intervention by Twitter in the democratic process.
Yes. They were protecting it.
This is the Twitter which disallowed any discussion of the "lab leak hypothesis" for a whole year. As did Facebook
Yet this is the same Twitter which "prohibits misinformation about Covid-19"??? What a fucking load of shit.
THE NATIONAL INTEREST MAY 26, 2021 How Twitter Cultivated the Media’s Lab-Leak Fiasco
Anyways. I'd love to see a complete ban on any and all private companies involvement in any election whatsoever. It'd be a way of keeping the Tories' nonsense out.
Over at the Telegraph right now, two of the top three headlines are that Omicron is mild and cases are declining while the third is that the data is frightening and Boris should have locked us down.
Thanks to tlg for the articles. I think I'd broadly agree on this article, where I think the broad thrust is that there is evidence that, overall, people are having fewer children than they would like due at least in part to economic factors and, since the fertility rate is well below the replacement level, we could take steps to make it easier for people to have more children (at a younger age), without that leading to an unsustainable increase in the population, thus increasing the sum total happiness of the country.
I'm surprised, though, at his conclusion that politicians are unlikely to take up this cause at all. Although the Conservatives have taken anti-natalist steps in recent years - such as the tax credits two child limit - the rhetoric of helping "hard-working families" is still de rigeur for British politicians, and the Tories also took a limited step towards his suggested tax change with the married couples allowance.
Also, given the toxicity of immigration, politicians will find that they will need to find ways to boost the birth rate if they want to engineer a gentle demographic transition, rather than an abrupt one. Providing tax breaks to British families will win more votes than increasing the immigration rate.
I would much rather see politicians make some attempt to counter the toxicity surrounding immigration. If, as seems obvious to me (though I know others do not agree) there are too many people in the world, then moving some of those people from where they are surplus mouths to where they can be full, contributing citizens, seems a far better way to do things than simply trying to artificially boost birth rates. In the end the economics of the demographic timebomb in first world countries is a glorified ponzi scheme that must eventually fail. That is what we need to be addressing rather than perpetuating it by trying to get people to have more kids.
I do realise mine is not generally a popular view but I think it is one that should at least be explored.
Hang on, does this scan. I thought the "ponzi scheme" argument was we should STOP relying on immigration to support our economy. How can you be buying into this and at the same time arguing for more immigration from poor to rich countries?
There can be more than one ponzi scheme. And I would have thought it obvious that I have never supported the arguments against free migration. All those arguments are, in my opinion, either straight forward false (migrants costing us more than they bring in) or they are based on a partial representation of the truth (migrants do not solve the demographic timebomb but more births will).
Since it is the latter we are arguing, all I am saying is that there is no difference in my mind between bringing in immigrants and encouraging more births to solve the demographic timebomb. Actually that is not true. Since a proportion of those immigrants might want to go back to their country of origin in the future and so not be a drain on our systems in old age, in fact immigration is a better way to deal with the issues of work force vs an aging population rather than just increasing birth rates.
But I am also looking at it more globally. This world does not need more people. We have more than enough already. Now the best way to deal with that is to bring all the countries of the world up to western living standards as we know this results in a drop in birth rate. But in the meantime it seems eminently sensible to me to allow (not force) people in areas of high/rising population to move to areas of low/falling population if they want to as a means of improving the lot in both areas.
U.S. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene's personal Twitter account (@mtgreenee) has been permanently suspended for misinformation about COVID-19
I’ve made this point before. Isn’t anyone else worried about a major means if communication being restricted to politicians who agree with the owner of that channel.
Either Twitter is a publisher who can chose what to publish, or it is a medium for others communication with which case it can’t
If dangerous lies & hate speech are prohibited on a platform and most dangerous lies & hate speech come from MAGA loonies then MAGA loonies will inevitably bear the brunt of restrictions. I just can't get to seeing this as some worrying slippery slope towards the sort of sinister politically motivated censorship of free speech you get in (eg) China.
The problem is when someone is a credible candidate for high office and you restrict their ability to present their case.
Not very… democratic… is it
There are some much worse undemocratic actions in the US in favour of Trump. This rebalances it a bit.
That way lies madness
Fix the other problems instead. Don’t create new ones.
Politicians don't deserve special opt outs from the rest of us. If someone incites people to kill others then it shouldn't matter who they are for that to break the law.
Sure, if they break the law prosecute them. But that’s not what we are talking about
The same principle applies to private sector rules as much as it does to the law.
The media sector has always had different rules because of the intersection with the public sphere.
If the BBC, ITV and Sky plus Facebook and Twitter decided to ban any mention or broadcast of Kier Starmer would that be right? I say not.
If Starmer was consistently calling for kids to get kitchen knives and try balancing them on their heads, yes. But it would be up to those individual organisations to decide to no-platform the views. However, Starmer is such a public figure that they might be best just pointing and laughing. The anti-vaxxers who promote vax conspiracy theories are bordering on evil - as Wakefield was (and is) with MMR.
This is related to the Gerry Adams debacle in the 1970s/80s, which was by government mandate.
The issue is this Congresswoman who has just been banned plus Trump.
A random loon doesn’t matter. A credible candidate for elected office does
Hang-on... Twitter have a very clear policy regarding misinformation about Covid-19. Taylor Greene knows what those rules are, has consistently ignored them, has received several short-term bans but still carried on.
It would be no different to OGH banning me if I persistently broke the rules of this site.
Except
A) you are not running for office AFAIK PB is not a major source of political news and information for a material number of voters
Neither OGH nor twitter is any more obliged to give a platform to those who are "running for office" any more than the Daily Telegraph has to give air time to the Socialist Workers Party.
Nope. Twitter and Facebook (and the rest) are entirely different to any media outlet that we have seen, by orders of magnitude and dimension. The Daily Telegraph is not used and read by 5 billion people, the Daily Mirror is not the major media platform for every western politician alive. Nor has any previous media outfit had the instantaneous, aggressive, addictive quality of social media, which has so clearly coarsened our politics and increased its nastiness
You cannot simultaneously bemoan the rise of Trump and the growing threat to American democracy (as you rightly do) then say Oh social media can do what it likes. Trump used Twitter's unseemly power to fuel his bollocks, and even if he is now banned on a Twitter-whim other demagogues (of left and right and any religion) will do the same.
Social media needs to be reined in, taxed properly, and regulated; the giants are like the oil companies of the early 20th century (times a thousand): horrible monopolies/cartels with way too much power. The US government needs to stand up to Twitter and Zuckerberg the way it stood up to Standard Oil
Remember that Facebook and Twitter prohibited discussion of the lab leak theory for a year, and came quite close to successfully censoring forever the most plausible explanation of a plague that has killed 20 million people. This is Double Plus UnGood
I agree that Big Social shouldn't be able do what it likes. It should do its utmost to keep poison like Trump off its platforms. And if it won't do that job voluntarily, the govt needs to step in and make it.
Choosing to go to bat for Marjorie Taylor Green out of all 435 members of the house of reps is not gonna be a good look for you Charles.
I’ve no idea who she is, and know nothing about her except that apparently space lasers are responsible for forest fires 😂
The principle remains is that all candidates for elections in a free country have an equal right to be heard. If they break the law prosecute then. But to prevent them using a major channel of political communication is to distort elections
You are doing the thing where you defend a general principle based on the newspaper headline of a specific case and everyone talks about the specific case that justifies the action whilst you are ignorant of the specifics.
Yes. I’m defending the principle of free elections. I don’t know who MTG is and don’t really give a shit.
This is not interfering with 'free elections'. The companies have rules - sensible rules, by the sound of it - and are hopefully applying those rules uniformly. If they applied them very unevenly you may have more of a point; but it's up to you to provide evidence of that in this discussion.
It is. Twitter is a key part of a former POTUS’s election technique. They have made the decision to ban him. How anyone can claim that is not going to impact on the election result I don’t know.
So, if it is going to impact, you are really comfortable with giving a private company that power?
Absolutely - as long as the rules are fairly implemented to all. If Trump did make Twitter a key part of his election technique, he should have looked at their rules and operated within them. If he got banned having broken those rules, then it's his own fault.
'Conservative candidate Valérie Pécresse also objected to the position of the EU flag: "Preside over Europe yes, erase French identity no!", she tweeted'
Watched the Harry Potter 20 reunion. Am I being unreasonable to find it appalling that Jo Rowling was excluded from it?
There is a certain irony that she wrote a book series satirising intolerance, division and exclusion and has ended up being accused of intolerance, division and exclusion...
Comments
We are nimble folk.
We were due to fly out 18 Dec and on the morning of 16 Dec France announced tourism ban from 00:01 18th. Fuckety fuck.
We brought flight forward a day. Hoped our PCR tests came in time (they did). Got in under the wire. We were really lucky in that transfer company and accommodation both adjusted arrangements no problem. So we ended up having a day's extra holiday with much quieter slopes than usual. The flight home on Boxing Day had 21 passengers on it.
A random loon doesn’t matter. A credible candidate for elected office does
IMV they should be liable: as long as they've had fair warning that a potential crime is being committed on their property.
Getting hard-packed by the time we left though; they could do with some more snow now as a top-up.
https://twitter.com/JustinGrayWSB/status/1354870334655262724
(*) Technically not a laser but a very precise solar collector.
For a start, I wouldn't really want to take a phone with me while doing a sport in which there is a strong chance that I might a) fall down on top of it or b) get wet.
John O’Looney, a funeral director and antivaxer, had been due to speak at the march but is believed to be in hospital with Covid.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/antivaxers-threaten-radical-action-after-boxing-drills-on-beach-h3rf9khkq
It would be no different to OGH banning me if I persistently broke the rules of this site.
Might lose the Blairites, though, so I can't see it.
And he does seem to have blown the whistle on the fact that care homes were polishing off oldies as fast as they could stick needles in them last year. Not sure why nobody minds about this
https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2128/rr-11
This is real time evidence that Omicron severity in a vaccinated population is significantly lower than Alpha was last year in an unvaccinated population (which seems obvious, but I've seen plenty of blue tick wankers still try and cast doubt on it). The other indication (though not hard evidence, we'll get that on Thursday) is that we're seeing a very high proportion of incidental hospital admissions, that is people who require treatment but also test positive. We could be well over 50% incidental admissions at this rate, in fact if we include non-overnight stays it may even be over 70%.
Sri Lanka is teetering on the edge. A collapsed tourist economy, allied with huge debts = default and despair
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/02/covid-crisis-sri-lanka-bankruptcy-poverty-pandemic-food-prices
How many countries must be in a similar position? Reliant on tourism and already poor. Nepal? Cambodia? Chunks of Africa. Polynesia. And so on
Pandemics often evolve into Famine and War, this may be the same
Sarah Palin (who refuses to be vaccinated) seems to have been the prototype for these GOP females.
Perhaps they might never have arisen if McCain had made a better choice in 2008.
As with Nick Griffin let them publish and be damned
The principle remains is that all candidates for elections in a free country have an equal right to be heard. If they break the law prosecute then. But to prevent them using a major channel of political communication is to distort elections
Well, not really.
A) you are not running for office AFAIK
If trump or Majorie wotsit break the law then prosecute them.
What is that doing to their economy? How can it continue? Turbulent prospects for the world, especially the poor south
And don’t really like the squid nickname for Goldmans. Faintly redolent of anti-Semitic tropes of the past
Given the number of (former?) Revolutionary Communist Party members working for the Tory party that won't be that hard for them.
Private companies should be allowed to do whatever the heck they like within the law. If they have well-publicised rules, and someone breaks them, it's right for them to treat the 'customer' no differently to anyone else.
Now, if this was aimed directly at that elected official, and they were being treated differently to other elected officials saying the same thing, it would be a different matter.
I also don't think you've thought this through on the other side: what happens if the government is not nice and snuggly? Should the private companies broadcast whatever the government wants lest they be seen as 'interfering in democracy' ?
(*) I doubt our MP could afford the prices ...
You cannot simultaneously bemoan the rise of Trump and the growing threat to American democracy (as you rightly do) then say Oh social media can do what it likes. Trump used Twitter's unseemly power to fuel his bollocks, and even if he is now banned on a Twitter-whim other demagogues (of left and right and any religion) will do the same.
Social media needs to be reined in, taxed properly, and regulated; the giants are like the oil companies of the early 20th century (times a thousand): horrible monopolies/cartels with way too much power. The US government needs to stand up to Twitter and Zuckerberg the way it stood up to Standard Oil
Remember that Facebook and Twitter prohibited discussion of the lab leak theory for a year, and came quite close to successfully censoring forever the most plausible explanation of a plague that has killed 20 million people. This is Double Plus UnGood
Your cafe can be replaced. Twitter and Facebook can’t (in the sense of current reach).
Non cuddly politicians have a right to be heard.
https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1477707228614438912?s=20
So, if it is going to impact, you are really comfortable with giving a private company that power?
Yet this is the same Twitter which "prohibits misinformation about Covid-19"??? What a fucking load of shit.
THE NATIONAL INTEREST MAY 26, 2021
How Twitter Cultivated the Media’s Lab-Leak Fiasco
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/05/lab-leak-media-liberals-covid-china-biden-fauci-investigation.html
Lefties just like Twitter because it leans left. It is no paragon of objectivity and it is deeply dangerous in its caprices
I somehow manage to keep up-to-date without it. Despite the complete absence of any alternative.
If you think certain companies are too powerful and need to be broken up, I'm listening. But let's not pretend that in the great Twitter v Trump debate that Twitter are the bad guys. That would require a level of gymnastic foolishness even beyond your supple limits.
It'd be a way of keeping the Tories' nonsense out.
(Very nearly, anyway.)
It's true though, Twitter has led to those dim witted loons with short soundbites and no understanding of the issues - Trump, Modi, Johnson/Cummings, Corbyn, Macron, Grillo etc - dominating serious figures who can't summarise things because they realise life is complicated.
They existed before of course - Chavez, Putin, Netanyahu - but their recent proliferation since Twitter went viral is surely not a coincidence.
This is not a good thing, on the whole.
If she advocates something unpleasant without crossing the legal line then let the electorate be her judge
IMV politicians have a right to be heard to the same extent as the rest of us. If I was saying some of the sh*t she was, then hopefully I'd be treated the same way if it came to the organisation's attention. Being a politician *should* have no effect on the rules under which their speech is judged. Where they have such protections - such as in parliament - they are rarely used, and is equal for all politicians - with obvious exceptions.
Twitter is an absolute shit heep
Squad not squid..
https://twitter.com/vpecresse/status/1477007885867618305?s=20
If it marginalises people from its platform in a way you don't approve of without crossing the legal line then let its customers be its judge.
Since it is the latter we are arguing, all I am saying is that there is no difference in my mind between bringing in immigrants and encouraging more births to solve the demographic timebomb. Actually that is not true. Since a proportion of those immigrants might want to go back to their country of origin in the future and so not be a drain on our systems in old age, in fact immigration is a better way to deal with the issues of work force vs an aging population rather than just increasing birth rates.
But I am also looking at it more globally. This world does not need more people. We have more than enough already. Now the best way to deal with that is to bring all the countries of the world up to western living standards as we know this results in a drop in birth rate. But in the meantime it seems eminently sensible to me to allow (not force) people in areas of high/rising population to move to areas of low/falling population if they want to as a means of improving the lot in both areas.
https://techcrunch.com/2021/01/12/study-finds-around-one-third-of-americans-regularly-get-their-news-from-facebook/amp/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvLnVrLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANbssyuv1w8fer_S05cP5lcI5do8OB6r7NZlhwTMHC4oOK3HLa553N18k2EphXF5XnZTD_rDaxEPEp9bKOdkaJpwfkHv5RDaUDKjJbQAi2ylWplx5-2gKJV-xrNeyNnAvHrmw9zcMVUBZDS7M7Hv-OCG2mbNYdwH9Yxt1TpFFBbj
This is one of those detail things that is important to know about lest you look lile an idiot.